2025:JHHC:25587 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 819 of 2025 ------ Dharmendra Kumar, son of Basudeo Mandal, resident of Village Sabeduma, P.O. Mahubana, P.S. Ramghar, District Dumka (Jharkhand) at present resident of Village Rashikpur, P.O. Dumka, P.S. Dumka (T), District Dumka (Jharkhand) .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. Manoj Kumar Sah, son of Ganesh Pd. Sah, resident of Village Kuchira, P.O. and P.S. Gopikandar, Sub Division and District Dumka (Jharkhand), at present residing at Village Koraiya, P.O. Dumka, P.S. Muffasil, Sub Division and District Dumka (Jharkhand) 2. Amarnath Bhagat, son of Late Sonaram Bhagat, resident of Village Kuchira, P.O. and P.S. Gopikandar, Sub Division and District Dumka (Jharkhand) 3. Sunil Kumar Dey, son of Late Prabodh Chandra Dey, resident of Village Rasikpur, P.O. Dumka, P.S. Dumka Town, Sub Division and District Dumka (Jharkhand), at present residing at Mohalla Dangalpara, near Gandhi Maidan, Dumka, P.O. Dukma, P.S. Dumka Town, Sub Division and District Dumka (Jharkhand) 4. Hemlata Devi, wife Late Basudeo Mandal 5. Santosh Kumar, son of Late Basudeo Mandal 6. Sunaina Devi, wife of Dhananjay Mandal and daughter of Late Basudeo Mandal Sl. Nos. 4 to 6 are residents of Village Sabeduma, P.O. Mahubana, P.S. Ramghar, District Dumka (Jharkhand) .... .... .... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate Ms. Divya, Advocate Ms. Isha Kaushik, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Order No.02 / Dated : 27.08.2025 Petitioner is the son of judgment debtor in Title Execution Case No.10/11 of 2019. Instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.07.2025 by which the learned executing court has disposed of the execution case. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the execution has been effected beyond the decretal property and has included the land of the petitioner in the said delivery of possession. 3. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is apparent that the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.82 of 2006 has attained finality and the execution case has also been 2025:JHHC:25587 disposed of. Therefore, the executing court could not have gone beyond the terms of the judgment and decree which has been executed. There is no infirmity in the order. If the petitioner has any claim of title, he can work out the available legal remedies. Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands disposed of. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit